It seems that the only basis for using the words
"wholesome" or "unwholesome" is simply because of the rejection of
God.

No, not necessarily. You don't see the government
telling people "smoking cigarettes is evil". You see them telling
people "smoking cigarettes is unhealthy and causes early
death".

You see, whether smoking cigarettes is evil or not is besides the
point. And you are entitled to your own opinion whether smoking is
evil. But the purpose of the government is to tell us the harmful,
factual, effects of smoking. The government has a job to educate us
about cause and effect, same with Buddha. It has nothing to do with
rejection of God. The government didn't avoid saying "smoking is
evil" because it rejects God, and even if the government is
Christian, saying that "smoking is evil" is still besides the
point.

The fact is that whether smoking is evil or not, or whether there
is a God or not, smoking IS going to accumulate tar in the lungs
that causes cancer etc.

1. The government does not deny the fact that there is good or
evil even if they do not say that smoking is evil, though they say
it is harmful to health. I would also make the distinction between
a moral issue and a health issue. BTW, I do not hold the view that
smoking is evil, anymore than to say that drinking is evil.

2. I think the issue is again not that cancer brings death. We
are again back to the issue of origins. Life comes first, not
death. Where then does life come from? Even if you say the
conditions are right, they are not sufficient to cause life, as I
have explained earlier. Life comes only from life. God, who is
Life, created life. God, who is Mind, made man intelligent. God,
who is a moral being, created us as moral beings. A car doesn't
come together because of right conditions, but because intelligence
was applied to materials. A car existed in the mind before it
became matter.

Well again, that is entirely your opinion whether something is
evil or not. Karma is not about good/bad, evil, wrong/right, etc.
'Wholesome' 'unwholesome' is describing something factual -
nonjudgemental. Smoking causes cancer and is thus 'unwholesome',
this is factual. No judgement required, only a discerning eye and
intelligence to see that it is so.

You say Hitler is evil... I'd think otherwise. I think he is
seeking happiness in a very ignorant way for his people. His
compassion for his people is limited by his inability to feel
beyond his limited nationalistic scope or identity.

Just like a lion loves his child but kills deers, etc.

I think you have misunderstood. I am not saying that everything
have a moral judgement involved. Though I would qualify my
statement by saying that it was because of Adam's rebellion that
death and suffering (which cancer can cause) entered the perfect
world that God created.

In the Bible, God tells us what is right and wrong. When we say
something is evil we are only aligning ourselves with God's view.
Which is why God is angry with those who call evil good and good
evil.

If Hitler was just ignorant and seeking happiness in his own
way, then he ought not be judged. He is not morally wrong or
accountable. We do not bring lions to court and put them on trial
and charge them with murder etc, and it would seem that to be
consistent you wouldn't do that to Hitler, or any wrongdoer for
that matter. Is that your view?

The point about Hitler was not about his lack of compassion or
his ignorance, but that he was guided and influenced by the
scientists of his day who championed Darwinian causes and ethics,
to root out the weaker races to prevent them from contaminating the
Aryan superior race, and to breed an elite race of supermen. You
can see the documentation here
http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Nazi-Darwinian-worldview-Holocaust/dp/1894400496

yup…i do believe u have some basic understanding but the plm
is..its not structured but bits n pieces of infos from the
internet…as c u the plms with educated ppls r they like to quantify
things which actually is not wrong but not complete…take for
example 1+1=2 but if i said 1+1+1=infinity(from tao de jin) ppl
cant accept. Buddha preaches the middle way…something n nothing
always complemet each other, if u think something is something n
nothing is nothing then u fall into 1 of the extreme sides…

as i said check out maha vaipulya buddhavatamsaka sutra
buddhism = greatest enjoyment of life.

btw the developement of nuclear boomb was more of a experiment
under the facade of ww2.

It not about right, left or middle way. It is an issue of truth.
Is the middle way the truth? It is not extreme to insist that
1+1=2, it is true. To say 1+1+1=infinity would be false. Because
the answer cannot be both 3 and infinity at the same time in the
same sense. Something and nothing does not complement each other,
they are opposites! The problem is in thinking that something can
comes from nothing by nothing.

One can say that Buddhism is greatest enjoyment of life. Another
can say that Christianity provides that. So this cannot be used as
a test of truth.

The nuclear (atomic) bomb was dropped in WW2. Anyway, the point
was that the bomb or its effects was NOT an example of something
coming from nothing.

It seems tat bchrist r trying very hard to defend christianity,
but as u c there r just too many loop holes in the bible not to
mention tat anyone rich enough can come up with their own ver of
bilble. u said god create human to be look like him, y is tat so,
do god behave the same way as human or wat. Since god is
omnipotent, then y did he not use his power to make human obey his
again and y did he let human to sin, give them chance again..y did
he go thru all this troubles n for wat…for fun, i doubt so…U also
said god created universe for human but he himself live in another
dimension or universe…y cant he live together with human in this
same dimension or universe…is he despising human or wat…??

1. Yes, defending Christianity does take some effort. Usually
that is so because most critics of Christianity know little about
what they criticise.

2. What do you mean by loop holes in the Bible.

3. Sure, anyone with the money can come up with their own
version of the Bible, but what's this point supposed to prove about
the Bible?

4. God created man in His image, simply means that humans
reflect God in SOME ways, not in every aspect. It is not that God
is like man, but man is like God.

5. Certainly God can make man do His bidding. But then you won't
be man, but robot. What kind of meaningful reciprocal relationship
is there? And indeed none of redemption history was for fun. God is
not a capricious God.

6. If you have read the Bible you would know that those who are
in Christ i.e. the church is God's dwelling place. God lives in us
since we are the spiritual temple, to those who believe in Him and
trust in Him. That's the God revealed, not some distant aloof
being, but One who dwells in His people. Transcendent yet
immanent.

You can judge it to be 'wrong', I wouldn't have problem with
that. But karma in and of itself isn't about 'wrong' or 'right'...
karma is either wholesome, unwholesome, and pure [i.e. actions not
done out of craving, aggression and delusion].

With regards to karma, nobody decides something to be wholesome or
unwholesome just like nobody decides something to be black or
white... what is black is seen to be black by a discerning eye, and
a black seed seen plainly in sight produces a black result, while a
white seed produces a white result... just like a black animal
produces a black offspring and a white animal produces a white
offspring. A chinese man produces a chinese offspring, a western
man produces a western offspring [lets not talk about mix blood].
You don't need to "judge" if someone is a chinese, i.e. his skin
colour is already plain in sight for you to see, and if you have
the intelligence to discern. Seeing is enough, no need for
judgement. Same goes for karma.

When the Buddha calls it 'wholesome' or 'unwholesome' he is not
making a judgement on things, he is simply describing the
action and its results. What is wholesome produces states of well
being, happiness, freedom from suffering and afflictions. What is
unwholesome is... well... the opposite of that.

For example smoking two packs of cigarettes a day is certainly
unwholesome
because it does damage to one's body. You don't get cancer because
of someone's judgement that it is 'evil' and 'wrong', you get
cancer because smoking is unwholesome, it causes addiction and the
tars accumulate and cause cancer. We don't say smoking is 'evil' or
'wrong' - well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but
regardless of your opinion whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' - it is
a fact that smoking is 'unwholesome', so karma is non-judgemental
in that sense yet can be catergorized as wholesome/unwholesome with
its corresponding effects:

3. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome,
the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the
wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is
straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived
at this true Dhamma.

4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of
the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the
wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not
given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is
unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is
unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome;
covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is
unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.

5. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of
the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a
root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the
unwholesome.

6. "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living
beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is
wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is
wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention
from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is
wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is
wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This
is called the wholesome.

7. "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root
of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion
is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the
wholesome.

8. "When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome,
the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the
wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he
abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the
underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by
abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now
makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one
of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence
in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma."

It seems that the only basis for using the words
"wholesome" or "unwholesome" is simply because of the rejection of
God. Otherwise, in most instances cited the words would be "good"
or "evil" in a moral sense. Everyday we make moral judgements, we
call some behaviour good or bad, and some evil. Our legal system
uses the same lingo, recognising somethings as good and evil, right
and wrong, just and unjust.

Why is covetousness, greed, adultery, murder etc wrong? Because
God said so. He made us, so He sets the rules. It is not the 10
Suggestions, but the 10 Commandments. God sets the moral standards
by which we are judged.

I submit that underlying the Buddhist notions of wholesome and
unwholesome actions is some knowledge that some things are just
plain wrong. Murder is not just unwholesome, it is evil. Hitler
wasn't just doing unwholesome acts, he was actually an evil person
and did evil things that required punishment.

I think it still somehow comes back to the question, is there a
Creator God? If there is, it changes the whole game, doesn't
it?

In fact all of the Q posted by Bchrist can be found with great
details in maha vaipulya buddhavatamsaka sutra. For example how
something can be created out of nothingness, a gd example would be
nuclear bomb, just imagine how a small piece of unstable element
can be manipulated to release such a huge amt of energy, following
this line of tots, u will understand, similiarly the invisible
energy present in the nothingness can be gathered and cystallised
into something touchable.

So u give yrself and buddhism a chance, for a start u can read
up maha vaipulya buddhavatamsaka sutra and make a comparsion yrself
cos without some basic knowledge in buddhism, its very diificult to
appreciate wat others tried to explain to u.

Urrmmm...the nuclear bomb has to be created. The elements has to
be harnessed and manipulated to give the intended effect. All this
requires intelligent causes. So I don't see how this example is
evidenc that something can be created out of nothingness. The
unstable elements already exists, the people who manipulate it also
exists. Energy present in the nothingness? This statement is rather
incoherent. Please explain.

I believe I have some basic understanding of Buddhism. And I
certainly try to appreciate what is being said.

I appreciate your passion in Christ. I love him too. I
personally think he is a Bodhisattva due to his wonderful actions.
(That means he is a being on the verge of spiritual awakening and
evidence of that is through his compassionate actions) With the
deepest respect to you, it is
pointless to keep quoting from the bible and telling us your Bible
beliefs when obviously, we, Buddhists do not believe in
it.

Jesus once asked who people think He is. Many views were given,
but only one was met with His approval and endorsement, that He is
the Son of God, i.e. God Himself. Christ's revelation and claims
for Himself is more important than what we like to think of Him
as.

I quote the Bible to show that I am not making my own answers
up. Truth be told, many Buddhists also quote chunks of Buddhist
teachings for me even though I don't believe it. Is it pointless?
Nope. At least I can read and evaluate them, even if I do not agree
or believe them.

1. In what sense is conversion to Buddhism from
Christianity a novelty? Even if it is a novelty, what is the
significance of that?

Of
course it is a novelty because Christians have always been more
evangelical and aggressively converting people to Christianity.
Even as a Catholic, I have had so many other Christians telling me
that my church is wrong and that I am going to hell and that I have
to go to their church, its ridiculous. However, I have so far not
heard of a Christian converting to Buddhism and do feel I am a
unique 1. However, I heard of my friends who were Buddhists being
converted to Christianity though. Hence, I think I am rather
unique.

2. Yes, Buddhism teaches how to get out of suffering.
But it never addresses the question of origins. It sidesteps
it entirely and dismisses it as irrelevant. There is IMO a lack of
the big picture and a complete view of things.

Yes,
the Buddha never explicitly described our origins and Buddhist
scholars interpret his silence to be because it is not important
for our spiritual development at this point and that the truth may
be too much for us to understand. Buddhists believe that we have so
many previous lives that it is way to far to trace our origins.
Buddha talked about other worlds and that this world we live in is
just one amongst many. On the other hand, the bible say that God
created Adam, Eve and the world and universe in 7 days. I am sorry,
I find that even harder to believe and there's no shred of evidence
for that one.

3. Indeed the Buddha is an ordinary man who claimed to
have an answer to the problem of suffering and death, and who
also succumbed to death eventually. Christianity teaches that God
came down as man, suffered and died on the cross, and
rose from the dead to show that death has been overcome. But
Buddhism does not explain why or where man come from, but
the Bible teaches that God created us.

If
Christ overcame death, can you show me another Christian who had
achieved that same state?

4. You claimed to have been a convert from
Christianity, but have you read Genesis? What does it
say at the end of Day Six of creation week? God's says it was
"very good". What do you think He meant by that? If you have never
considered this deeply, perhaps now is a good time to refresh
yourself on this.

I am
sorry, I don't believe in the bible, especially the Old
Testament.

5. You think God is unable to stop evil? Then the God you
reject is not the God of the Bible. God has already told us the
future, evil will be no more and the curse will be no more. Have
you read Revelation? You can't claim to have read that and then say
that Satan is stronger than God.

Why
does he need to wait till then? Why can't he do it now? Why does
God have to put everyone to the test? He sounds like a powerful
bored petulant child and treating us mortals as mere
toys.

6. What about people who never heard of God? Well, the
Bible teaches about this too in the book of Romans. Have you read
it?

Your
point eludes me. I have read it a long time ago. So, I have to
believe in God in order to be saved. A sinner who had sinned his
whole life and at the moment of death, he says he believes in God
and that wipes out his whole lifetime of sin and goes to heaven?
What about those who have been virtuous their whole lives but never
believed in God. They go to hell or purgatory?

7. Lastly, what particular issues do you think that the
Bible does not answer but only Buddhism can? To be sure, the Bible
does not claim to answer everything, and I don't think the Buddha
answered everything too. So perhaps you may wish to
clarify?

Let
me get this straight, Buddhism and Christianity have answers for
both but I find that the answers provided in Buddhism suits me
better. Pscyhologists are having conferences with Buddhist
scholars and they found similarities. Past life regression is now a
legitimate field of study without any Hindu-Buddhist
association.

Even
the greatest physicists of the 20th Century, Albert Einstein says
this about Buddhism,

"Buddhism has the characteristics
of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It
transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers
both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious
sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and
spiritual, as a meaningful unity. The religion of the
future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God
and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the
spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the
experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful
unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion
that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.
"

That's all I need. Buddhism may no suit you but its ok. It suits
me.

1. Perhaps you do feel unique in being a convert to Buddhism
from Roman Catholicism. But still it is irrelevant to the question
of truth claims. Like you said, it can be just mere novelty and
nothing more. Thus my point about the significance of it.

2. Why would you find it hard to believe that God created the
universe but easy to believe the non-answer (i.e. silence or
sidestepping the issue) that Buddhism give? Is there any evidence
for other worlds or universes besides ours?

3. Buddha was an ordinary man who died. He never claimed to be
God or infallible. Christ died and rose from the dead, the first.
The Bible does not teach that Christians will now all resurrect
from the dead, so your theology and expectation is already wrong.
But the Bible does teach that there will come a resurrection of all
from the dead, when judgement day comes.

4. I am not asking if you believe the OT, I am asking if you
KNOW what Genesis taught. Apparently not it seems.

5. The Bible gives the answer as to why God does not close human
history now. It says that God is patient and not willing that all
will perish, but that many will seek salvation in Him. It is not
about God's ability to stop evil, but God's patience and
willingness to us.

6. Sorry. Believing in God does not save you from hell. The
Bible says that even the demons believe in one God. Salvation is
about trusting in Christ's finished work on the cross as the basis
for reconciliation with God.

7. The choice of faith should not be a matter of preference, but
of truth, since religions make truth claims. It's not whether you
like this like ice cream flavours. Einstein is a scientist, not an
authority on religion. That would be a fallacious appeal to
authority. In any case, there is dogma in Buddhism. Do you avoid
dogma in Buddhism? I don't think so.

yes actually i'm quite confused..... if Christianity mentions
that self is something permanent, then how do we mature...? It
should be "fixed" am I right? If that is what God made us, then it
should be impermanent. But then again, if it is impermanent, it
will contradict with the first statement. I can't find a permanent
self in here.

If universe has a beginning, then it must end somehow. If it's
doesn't end, it is permanent. If it is permanent, then logically
speaking, the universe can't grow, evolve, or expand whatever. Then
where are we now...?

If Man sinned against God, then why do I drag in the cruelty,
savage animal food chain? This design is obviously flawed, or just
a prank...?

If going by what you claim- only the intelligent designer can
question the human intelligence, then i will really feel
regrettable and sad for the wisdom and hard work of our
ancestors... It will not only discredit, denigrate them, but also
to force people to accept that only God can improve our lives.A
little too passive...?

Sorry a bit more questions on Christianity... why God created
Man in the image of himself...? (am i correct?) And why it looks
like a caucasian but not negro, asian look? Is it biased? Why Man
sinned if it is created by God...? It should be a perfect
design right?

Does Man's mind contain Greed, Anger, Ignorance...? If no, then
why Adam picked the apple? Does it indirectly mean God himself has
Greed, Anger and Ignorance too?

What happens to a good person that does not believe in God? Will
he be banished into Hell forever?

If Hell is eternal damnation and what can the good people in
heaven do? The Bible teach selfless right...? But are they really,
completely selfless?

you see, my questions have nothing to do with God. Why? I think my questions are related to
how people interpret their own God. I am
questioning on the interpretation u see?

Lastly, some questions about you BIC. Why did you choose
Christianity? Why not Hindu God of Creator but Christianity...?

Are you in this Buddhist forum to clear the misunderstanding
about Christianity or are you trying to use Christianity to argue
on erroneous buddhist concepts? If it is the latter, you may have
waste your time and effort... apple and orange cannot be compared
together.

You see, if something, a source or whatever u may called it is
permanent, was told to hold on dearly to it is unimaginable. But by
doing so i am subjecting myself to stress. I am adhering myself to
suffering... All phenomena just.... come and go... not by some
intelligent design whatsoever. It is readily observable, not
abstract... e.g. weather, food turning bad, etc etc.... to make
things understandable. My body itself is also going to age and
spoil soon... If God can end all my sufferings, i will be Christian
straight away

1. Christianity does not teach about a permanent self. Or a
nonexistent self for that matter. The Bible teaches that there is a
God who created everything, including humans in His image. Every
human being is a distinct and unique person. So there is a you, me,
him, her, to speak of in real terms. All creation is contingent,
having no existence apart from God who always existed. The Bible
does not mention about permanence. It does mention about things
eternal, things immortal. The universe is not permanent or eternal.
But God can sustain it forever if He so chooses to.

2. The Bible speaks of the present heavens and earth passing
away with a big bang. Ironically this big bang is something coming,
not something that has happened 14 billion years ago. The present
universe is observed to be expanding still, and the Bible speaks
about God stretching out the heavens. Hmmm....

3. Man sinned against God and the whole creation was cursed. Sin
affects everything. Death entered the world, the whole of creation
groans as taught in the epistle of Romans. If you kill someone,
it's not just you and the dead person, it's more than that.

4. I do not quite get your point about only the intelligent
designer can question the human intelligence. Can you clarify that
part? Why would the existence of God makes you feel regrettable
about anything?

5. The Bible says God created man in His image but does not tell
us explicitly why. But if I may offer my opinions, it would be so
that we can have fellowhip with Him. Animals are not created in
God's image, thus they do not worship God or have any personal
relationship with God. Whether Ang Moh or Black or White, we are
all human beings, descended from Adam and Eve. Our so-called racial
differences are only skin deep. Do you know that we are all of one
blood? We are of the same human race. We are of the same mankind.
We are of the same colour, just different shades of the same
pigment melanin. The more you have the darker you are. Race has NO
biological meaning, it is entirely a social construct, and one that
cause no small amount of misery and division.

6. God created Adam and Eve perfect, innocent, without sin. But
God also endowed Adam with free will. It was the wrong choice and
action that led to Adam's fall from perfection. Nothing is wrong
with God at all.

7. What happens to a good person? Does he go to hell? Well, what
do you mean by a good person to begin with? Good in terms of what?
Compared to what? Whose standard of goodness are you using to call
someone good? Yours, Hitler, Mother Teresa, or God Himself? You
need an absolute yardstick of morality. Being morally good is not
good enough, you need to be morally PERFECT, just like God is.

8. You said your questions have nothing to do with God but only
interpretation. I don't see how that is so. In any case, God is the
subject and undergirds the Christian answer. Even if you think my
interpretation is incorrect, you have to show that your
interpretation is correct.

10. Why I choose Christianity? Well, I became a Christian at a
young age. But through the years as I study and learn about my
faith (and others) I see that the Christian worldview is the only
true worldview. This may not be politically correct to say, but I
believe it.

11. I am in this forum to exchange views, and in the process to
correct wrong views about Christianity that Buddhists may have. And
I hope that I have conducted myself well so far and have been
cordial and polite. In the process I am also corrected on my wrong
views concerning Buddhism. I will be frank to say upfront that I
believe many teachings of Buddhism are false, and I believe
you will also say that many teachings of Christianity are false
too. But such need not cause offense at all. It is only logical
that two contradictory teachings on a given subject cannot be both
true at the same time and in the same sense.

12. You need to make the right distinction between contingent
and necessary beings. The entire creation is contingent, it does
not have existence apart from God calling it into existence. It is
not permanent or eternal unless God decides it to be so. All
observed phenomena that we observe is contingent upon God's
sustaining power. God sets the laws of nature in place. If He
withholds His hand then everything will fall apart.

13. In the Bible there is lots of suffering, so what makes you
say that you will become a Christian if God will end your
suffering? Even Christ suffered. Just to end suffering is a very
myopic view of life. Life is more than just trying to end
suffering. In this world there will be tribulation because this is
a fallen world. But God promises to restore all things.

14. To ask me not to use God to answer your questions is
like to ask the soldier to lay down his weapons in fighting
the enemy. If I do not use God or the Bible, then what do I
use? My opinions? They count for nothing. But God's Word is
infallible and trustworthy. It is not a convenient answer, that
would be an insult and mocking my efforts and time in answering the
questions here, but I believe they are true answers that
explains what needs explaining.

It is precisely the clinging to self that cause
unsatisfactoriness in our daily lives. It is also the attachment to
notion of permanant self that causes rebirth, the never ending
cycle of samsara. Knowing and accepting that self is a mind
construct of the aggregates and depend on the aggregates and does
not exist outside of it that we begin to let go.

1. In the Bible it is not self, or the clinging to it, that
cause suffering. It is sin i.e. rebellion against God, that causes
suffering. Had Adam and Eve obeyed God rather than the serpent
there would have been no suffering and death. Other than God who is
independent and necessary, all of creation is contingent, dependent
on many things, ultimately dependent upon God's upholding of the
creation. That does not negate self, but only points to the fact
that apart from God, nothing can exists, not even life.

2. Our self shares similarities with the shadows only in the
sense that both are contingent, dependent arising as you say. But
just because we are contingent beings it does not mean that such
are illusory or even likened to being illusory. Illusory means
illusion, not real. Things that are contingent or temporary are not
necessarily illusory. You can say that man is made up of 5
aggregates, I can say that man is made up of many "parts". But the
question is, who created man or designed man to function as he
does? Again, creation presupposes an intelligent Mind.

3. You are right to say that software and hardware are created
by humans. This points to intelligent design. Same with humans. We
are specially designed to function the way we do, and this points
to a being of supreme intelligence, God. Life exists not because
the conditions are right, but because God created life. Having the
right conditions for life is necessary but not sufficient. A dead
body have all the necessary ingredients for life, but it is dead.
God breathed into Adam and he became "nephesh Chayah", a living
soul.

4. The point about monsters under the bed is that there is such
a thing as objective truth. If there are none under the bed, then
the belief that there is must be false.

5. I understand that Buddhism is about no self, I just find that
this idea is incoherent and inconsistent in so many ways and run
counter to daily experience. It is like saying that there is no
such thing as language or logic, one would have to presuppose them
to even deny them!

6. The past is not infinite simply because time has a beginning.
While a beginning must have a cause, what has begun may or may not
have an end. We do not have now if there was no past. To understand
now we need information about the past, otherwise we only work with
incomplete knowledge and may apply wrong solution.

7. Suffering comes when Adam wilfully ignored God's command and
disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree. The Bible does not
teach that man is ignorant, but that man is in rebellion against
his Creator.

and that "dimension"or eternal realm existed eternally IS what
the text is refering.

to us, that's Nirvana that's out of samsara that's really the
eternal realm.

we can speak of the single unit of Mind that existed eternally,
which u may call it "God", i am fine. but that mind, we all
sentient beings have it. that's water/h2o for both wave and
ocean. what the big have the smaller units also
have it. like atoms/molecules, everything has it. that is in
the matter world or non-living things. same with the mental world,
the mind is the atom in all beings as long as they are living
thing.

origins of samsara is when the mind become like a child
start to attached to curiousity. just like dream, if u don't
have attachment, wandering thoughts or hatred thoughts, you
won't dream. in the end, samsara is also an illusion, unreal when
one get rid of attachment, wandering thoughts or hatred thoughts.
it's not suppose to be there.

moon pointing are just examples of similes or analogies. i speak
of the monkey trap as analogy, while u say they are real (picking
on the finger), then i got nothing to say. if u cannot understand,
i also cannot help it. but i do like the bachelor's wife analogy.
see i understand your moon pointing. i can use it to explain the
Mind. :)

/\

1. The eternal realms where God is, is not to be confused with
the universe or cosmos which is what God created. One is spiritual
and the other is material.

2. Since we are created in God's image, we do share God's Mind
in some limited ways. We call this the communicable attributes of
God. Atoms are not to be confused with Mind. The material is not to
be confused with what is spiritual. They are distinct. We humans
have minds because God created us that way with the faculties of
self-reflection and self-awareness and self-consciousness.

3. Since humans have a beginning, as does the universe, and the
Mind is the eternal God, samsara could not have been there in the
beginning. Suffering was not present when God created the universe.
It entered the world when man disobeyed God's command. So you are
right, suffering is not supposed to be there. And it won't be there
when God comes again to judge.

4. An analogy is simply to use real things to illustrate a
point. I know you used it as an analogy. But the monkey trap
product exists. I am just saying that your analogy is flawed. You
like my bachelor's wife example? That was not an analogy at all. It
was meant to expose illogical and meaningless questions, like "Who
created God?"

sort of think that Tao De Ching or the theory of everything
start from nothing is of old testament, which Dharma deal more with
human emotion/mind/consciousness, is more practical and is of the
new testament. haha.

/\

The Bible starts with God and ends with God. Which is why the
Bible says that God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
end, or the A-Z if you like.

Gravity and friction are examples of natural law. to gravity,
there's either up/repel or down/attract. to friction, there's
stop and go. there's opposition everywhere. dark and light, male
and female etc.

/\

The laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology etc) are not to
be confused with the laws of morality. But both have their source
in an eternal Mind, God.

I think what Sinweiy is trying to pinpoint is Consciousness. It
is like an artist trying to paint a picture on an empty paper.
Prior to painting there is nothing, but as the artist paint it
transfer the image from his consciousness onto the paper.

Just look at the forex, how the economic outlook and
professional comment affect the investor in investing in a more
profitable currency. It is a mass consciousness or perception at
work. It can cause the currency rate to shoot up or declined.

As for SG adult comment on “million of people still goes to
church..” Well I agreed with u, but do you know most westerner go
to church to attend ceremony than for prayer. I’ m staying in OZ,
most of my Ang Mo colleague couldn’t care less to go unless it is
Christmas (which I also attend), wedding or relative baptism.
Church is a social gathering ground.

Remember how Galileo was persecuted by the Church for believing
that the Earth revolve around the Sun. How can one based one faith
on a book which was not written as a science text book but for
faith inspiration. I think BBC has done a couple of
documentary on Bible. Perhaps one can get hold of it, so that one
can develope a balance view. Oh Bishop Shelby Sponge and Joseph
Campbell are some of the more balance writer which I find
inspiring

1. Then it is this Consciousness or Mind which I believe is
better identified as the eternal God who is uncaused and
independent of all things.

2. Yes, many Christians "go to church" in the West as a cultural
thing to do. They can be called nominal Christians. But such people
can also be found in all religions, includng Buddhism. So I don't
see much in this point to make of.

3. The Galileo affair has been much misunderstood. It was more
church politics than about the Bible. Galileo was a believer
in God throughout his life. And if you base your faith in a science
text book, your faith will keep changing because science is
changing. Our faith in the Bible is because it is God's Word, not
because it is a science book, which it certainly is not.

4. BBC has done many documentaries about the Christian faith,
but the question is whether it has done justice to the Christian
faith in such documentaries. Sponge and Campbell are liberals
who play fast and loose with the Scriptures. I won't listen to
them or treat them as people who hold to the truth. People who are
informed on the Bible will disagree with both of them. See
http://creation.com/whats-wrong-with-bishop-spong

aiya, it is just empty space, existed eternally. which/who ever, the "creator"
still dwell in a space/somewhere. that somewhereexisted eternally is a
fact.
btw if got "creator", then who's the creator of creator? and the
creator of creator of creator etc? there's no end to it. for us the
Mind existed beginnless time.

the trap is samsara, is
suffering, which ever god(s) or heaven realms are still within it.
Buddha only found a way to escape this samsara of suffering and
endless reincarnations/life. if one still want to play along in
samsaric heaven, it's ok. but when one is tired of all this "shows"
drama or "dream", Dharma (to let go) is the way out. Buddha woke up
from this dream and became the Awakened One. Nirvana is
theUltimatepeace and Ultimate bliss in Buddhism that
Buddha found.

haha,there's a saying in Buddhism that one is
pointing finger at the moon, and the other person keep looking at
the finger and keep missing the moon.

/\

1. The universe (cosmos) we live in did not exist eternally, it
had a beginning. The universe (time, space, matter) is created by
God, who is Spirit, and thus God is not contained in the universe.
God does not exist in space. Where God dwells in the eternal realms
is a wholly different dimension from the universe.

2. The often-asked question "Who created God?" is an incoherent
and meaningless question once you understand the nature of God.
Just like the question "Who is the bachelor's wife?" once you
understand what the word bachelor means.

3. You speak of the Mind that existed eternally. I would be most
glad to tell you that this Mind is what Christians refer to as God.
Design in the universe comes only from a Mind. Only a Person can
have a Mind. Only Mind can make decisions, moral judgments, act
etc.

4. What is the origins of samsara? I think that has not been
answered. If infinite time has passed, then all should have escaped
samsara by now. If this is not so, then the idea of infinity time
past is incoherent.

5. The point about the finger and the moon. I take it to mean
that you say I keep looking at the finger and not the moon. I would
say that your explanation of the moon is not correct. You see, we
all have the same facts which we try to make sense of through
worldviews. Our worldviews help us interpret what we see. Everyone
has a worldview. Worldview colours everything. But not all
worldviews can be true at the same time in the same sense.

i do say life is like a dream, and never say
life IS a
dream. life is what we need to cope with given that it's
there, but the nature of it is like a dream,
so that we do not attached to life so strongly and suffer from it.
i keep stressing that we are not nihilist (nor eternalist) and u
keep saying we are nihilist.

why we stress on detachment is like the monkey trap. yeah i like
to use "like".

if u cannot understand the cracker part, skip it, and go to the
cosmo part that states how we view the origin/genesis of
life.

/\

Which then begs the question, is the nature of life like a
dream? Nihilism is the belief that life is meaningless and without
purpose. I don't think this characterise Buddhists. The monkey trap
is interesting but flawed. The monkey is real, the trap is real,
the banana is real. The trap, BTW, is an intelligent piece of work.
It preys on the monkey's instincts for food. Anyway, if the monkey
decides to let go of the banana and escapes from his potential
captors, what then? It only misses out on the banana and can
go eat something else to meet its hunger.

The article on cosmos defines cosmos differently. Cosmos is
synonymous with universe, so how does it make sense to speak of
many universes in the cosmos? There is only one universe, one
cosmos. The article also did not explain anything about origins, it
simply assumes the universe/cosmos existed eternally as a brute
fact.

Buddhist karma is not so much about 'right' and 'wrong'. It is
more about wholesome and unwholesome actions. No judge is
involved.

For example, a seed of hatred etched deep in one's mind will
eventually grow into a fruit, a result, and that karmic result must
naturally correspond to that seed or karmic cause, which is why
those who are always killing other beings are going to be reborn in
a place of suffering such as hell. It is impossible that a seed
that is rooted in craving, aggression and delusion can result in
any true happiness.

The Pali word kamma or the Sanskrit word
karma (from the root kr to do)
literally means ‘action’,
‘doing’. But in the Buddhist theory of karma it
has a specific meaning: it means only ‘volitional action’ not all
action. In Buddhist terminology karma never means its effect; its
effect is known as the ‘fruit’ or the ‘result’ of karma.

The theory of karma should not be confused with so-called
‘moral justice’ or ‘reward and punishment’. The idea of moral
justice arises out of the conception of a supreme being, a God, who
sits in judgement, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right
and wrong.

The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of
action and reaction; it is a natural law, which has nothing to do
with the idea of justice or reward and punishment. Every volitional
action produces its effects or results. If a good action produces
good effects, it is not justice, or reward, meted out by anybody or
any power sitting in judgement of your action, but this is in
virtue of its own nature, its own law. This is not difficult to
understand. But what is difficult is that, according to karma
theory, the effects of a volitional action may continue to manifest
themselves even in a life after death. (Walpola
Rahula, What the Buddha Taught)

Then in Buddhist thought do you call something e.g. rape,
murder, adultery, wrong or merely unwholesome? And who/what decides
what is wholesome or unwholesome? It would seem to be ultimately
dictated by outcome and not by the act. There is mention of a good
action, what then is good? It's hard to detach it
from any moral judgement, yet you seem to say that it has
nothing to do with justice. And if something is just a natural
law, then it makes no sense to call anything right or wrong,
just or unjust.

In Buddhism, you know you have made enough merits to escape
samsara when 1) you have a human life instead of a birth in other
realms which are by far much more numerous than the human realm in
comparison [e.g. ants by itself outnumber human tens of millions of
times in numbers] 2) you are not born with a disability such as
hearing and seeing impairment that prevents the study and practise
of dharma, 3) you are not born in a place where the dharma is not
known, such as some places in Africa or certain Islamic countries,
etc. 4) you actually meet with the dharma/Buddhist teachings, or a
Buddhist teacher, or sangha/community that practises the
teachings

When we qualify all these, we know we have obtained an incredibly
rare birth and circumstance conducive to our attainment of
liberation, through tremendous merits we have accumulated in past
and present lives. We actually have such tremendous merits as to
achieve a birth that is more rare than striking a million dollar
jackpot.

Then the rest is really up to us whether we want to waste away our
precious birth in worldly foolishness, or to actually practise the
dharma to attain liberation. Liberation is not so much about merits
(though merits are important), it is more about attaining wisdom.
Merits merely aid us, but is not the sole or even primary cause of
liberation. The more direct cause is to attain penetrative insights
and wisdom into the nature of reality through vipassana/vipashyana
or insight meditation.

Assuming that you are an ant, how does an ant (i.e you)
accumulate good karma for itself so that it does not become an ant
(or something less than an ant) in the next life? An ant
does what it does, doesn't it?

Buddhist karma and Christian 'you reap what you sow' is
different because karma is a natural law without an arbiter whereas
'you reap' in Christianity is the result of God's judgement.

In Christianity, "reaping and sowing" has both a natural order
meaning and a moral order meaning. In a natural order meaning, it
means the laws of nature applies. If you jump off the cliff without
parachute, you reap the consequences of a splattered body at the
base. In a moral order meaning, it means if you do wrong then you
must face the moral (and legal) consequences that come with it. It
also means that only moral agents can enforce a moral law. God is a
moral being, and thus created humans as moral beings too. Thus
God's moral standards apply, He tells us what is right and wrong.
He is the absolute moral standard. And He judges rightly in
accordance to His holy and just character.

This is different from Buddhism where Karma is a natural
law, inanimate. Is it then a moral law? But how is morality
enforced by something that is itself just natural law, like the law
of gravity? A moral Person can judge right and wrong, how does a
natural law make that judgement?

due to an universal concept of impermanence/change. life is like
an on going show; rebirth. one life can be this, the next be
another. hence that say life is like a dream. it's this
infinity that there's no end nor beginning in samsara. but one can
get out of this infinity rebirth by practicing the dharma.

we believed that we all have the same Mind as "god" and we all
can be Equal to 'God'. we are democracy, not imperialism. both the
wave and the ocean have the same water element.

here in the link is our cosmology of "beginning" sort of. see
and read the texts from

Chapter One

THE COSMOS

1. To say that life is like a dream or is like "X" or "Y" is not
the same as saying that life is a dream. One's preference is liken
one thing to another is not the same as stating that X is Y. Since
there is life and death, the question to ask is, what is the origin
of life? I trust you can see why this question keep cropping
up.

2. What do you mean by "God" in saying we can be equal to God? I
am sure it does not have the same meaning of God as in the
Bible.

3. Thanks for you link. I always find the Buddhist idea of
deconstruction rather interesting, be it a cracker in the hand or
the chair or the car. To me, the issue is not that you can tear a
car apart until you have all the parts and no car. It's a matter of
common sense to me that at time X you have a car but at time Y
after you have dismantled it that you have no car. The
car existed at time X but not at time Y. You can drive the car at
time X but not at time Y. But why would all this be interesting at
all? To me, what would be interesting would be to note that the car
did not come into existence by itself. It required intelligence to
put parts together. Any bloke with half an intelligence can
tear a car apart, but not anyone can put a car together that works!
The question is to account for the existence of the car, the human,
or even the universe for that matter. That brings us back to the
question of origins.

I think you guys didn't watch the documentary in the link. First
of all, Christianity didn't teach reincarnation today but
historically, Christianity was developed from Judaism and there's
still much proof that reincarnation was a central belief of
Judaism. In fact, an esoteric form of Judaism called Kabballah
still holds on this belief as part of its core beliefs.

So what happened to Christianity? It is subject to much debate
on why it only believe in a single faith. Sociologically, such a
belief made it easier for the Christian priests and bishops to
control the masses with such a belief because the people would take
their belief in God stronger as they only had one life and then
eternal salvation or damnation in hell. In fact today, past life
regression is an authentic scientific field of study. That means
that even the scientific community is slowly and reluctantly
accepting the overwhelming proof of reincarnation.

1. I would be frank to say I did not watch. God knows the amount
of things and videos I am asked to watch and it would be a long
backlog! The OT and NT is the book of the Christians. If you can
find any hint of reincarnation it would be in these books, but
where? Why appeal to esoteric forms of Judaism? Isn't it because
you cannot find it in the main forms? I think this strongly
mitigates your position.

2. It is common to hear that Christianity is all about
controlling of people. But is this true? Again such explanations
only serve to make truth stronger, that it cannot be denied that
there was one faith, one baptism, one God. Since it cannot be
denied that the Bible does not teach reincarnation, one has to then
appeal to secret texts that teach it!

3. Is the idea of reincarnation scientific? I have my doubts!
But please provide some references on this, that the scientists are
studying this.

In December, 1945, early
Christian writings containing many secrets of the early Christian
religion were found in upper Egypt, a location where many
Christians fled during the Roman invasion of Jerusalem. Undisturbed
since their concealment almost two thousand years ago, these
manuscripts of Christian mysticism rank in importance with the Dead
Sea Scrolls. These writings affirmed the existence of the doctrine
of reincarnation being taught among the early Jews and Christians.
These Christian mystics, referred to as Christian Gnostics, were
ultimately destroyed by the orthodox Church for being heretics.
Their sacred writings were destroyed and hidden with the belief
that they would be revealed at an appropriate time in the future.
The discovery in 1945 yielded writings that included some long lost
gospels, some of which were written earlier than the known gospels
of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Why today's Christianity did not teach reincarnation. A reason
given by a friend is whoever has
the biggest membership usually controls how the religion will
develop.

I think you have bought the whole Da Vinci Code fiction.
With truth there will come falsehoods. You would have to make the
case that what is orthodox is actually not. Simply finding
so-called lost teachings/gospels does not mean that they are the
secret truths. You wouldn't call into question Buddhism if someone
says they found texts that are hidden which teach things contrary
to what is considered orthodox, right? But it seems that when it
comes to Christianity many are happy to just believe anything that
might undermine the faith.

Karma is not a score card. Karma literally means actions and
each action we do leaves an indelible mark in our mind. It
reinforces our mind either towards selflessness - the concern for
others or selfishness, which is the concern for only ourselves. In
Buddhism, when we are overly selfish, we create problems for
ourselves and we becoming increasingly unhappy. People who are
happiest is usually people who are more selfless or those that have
others as their concern. So any action leading to either states of
mind determines whether it is positive or negative. In the end of
the day, karma is registered within the deepest levels of our mind
and from this part of our mind, karma will reappear to us as
'fruits' of actions.

Since it is stored within us, that's why we have people with
various talents and mental dispositions right from the moment of
our births. If karma and retribution was in the hands of God, then
God is really biased and unfair and this is totally opposite of how
Christians describe him. Why are some people born mute, impaired or
left to suffer in diseased and war torn countries while others are
born rich and living comfortably in Singapore?

The Bible teaches that we reap what we sow. But this is not to
be confused with the doctrine of karma. The Bible also teaches that
we should be selfless, again not to be confused with the notion
that there is no self. You can't be selfish if there is no self to
talk about. Since karma can be positive and negative, why would it
not be possible to know where you stand on this karmic register?
How much merits must one accumulate to escape samsara? You can't
see how far you have gone if you can't look back and see where you
have been or take stock of present position.

The idea of karma is foreign to the Bible. The fact of death and
suffering is explained in the Bble, it is because we live in a
fallen world. There are people born deaf and blind which Jesus
healed. But there will come a time when all is restored. Have you
read about the man with no limbs? Why is he also happy? See http://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org/about-nick/

When we see the world through Biblical lens we come away with a
completely new outlook. We understand why the world is the way it
is, and we look forward to a new heavens and a new earth.